Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Older Persons

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure for the 55-and-over age category.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): At 12th July, the latest date for which in-formation is available, 168,464 people aged 55 years and over were registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain.

Mr. Carter: That figure represents one in four of all unemployed. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, if we take the numbers of unemployed who have been out of work for a year or more, 52 per cent. of these people fall into the 55-and-over category, and, further, a large number, possibly even the majority, of these people will never have employment again? Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, consider taking action which would restrain —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is a serious matter. Will the Under-Secretary of State consider taking action which would restrain employers from making redundant people who are 55 years of age and older ; and, second—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—will he consider—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is enough for the Minister to answer now.

Mr. Smith: It is true that people in the older category are more numerous, but, despite the general increase in unemployment throughout the country, older workers have not fared noticeably worse than other sections of the community.

My Department always does whatever it can to persuade employers not to discharge older workers and to engage older workers where at all possible.

Mr. John Page: Is the Manpower Research Unit in my hon. Friend's Department particularly investigating the problem of people 55 years of age and over?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir; this is one of the problems of our times, and we are looking at it in considerable depth.

Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the problem of miners of 55 and over who were made redundant several years ago? This is an acute problem. Will the hon. Gentleman consider having a special inquiry into their difficulties?

Mr. Smith: I do not know that a special inquiry would solve deep-rooted problems of this kind, but we are aware of the very difficult situation of the older miner. Fortunately, as the hon. Gentle-man knows, there are schemes to help people in that situation. However, I do not think that one should ever give up hope that one will be able to find employment for those who are quite senior in age.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make the position of the Chair clear in the matter of supplementary questions? I did some-what curtail the supplementary question being asked by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Carter), but I did so only in the interest of other hon. Members who have later Questions. It would be much easier for the Chair to allow supplementary questions almost ad infinitum in each case, but I have to consider other hon. Members who wish to ask Questions. That was the only reason why I intervened.

Mr. Carter: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to introduce, for a limited time, an employment premium to employers in respect of redundant men, over the age of 45 years, whom they re-employ when jobs become available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): As


my hon. Friend will know, a scheme has been introduced in assisted areas to help those who are over 45 to find training. When we see how this is working, we may consider extending the scheme to other areas.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend agree that, as these men form a substantial part of the hard-core, long-term unemployed who may never be employed again, they should be treated as a priority group throughout the country and not just in the development areas and that encouragement should be given to employers to employ them when they can, especially as many Government training centres say that they retrain faster than younger men and make more stable employees?

Mr. Howell: I accept my hon. Friend's last point, and I accept that this is a very serious problem. We are watching the situation in the light of the experiment in the assisted areas.

Rother Valley

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and proportion of employment exchange areas in England and Wales which currently have a higher rate of unemployment than that in the Dinnington exchange area in the Rother Valley constituency.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Out of 374 areas in England and Wales for which rates of unemployment can be calculated, at 11th October eight had rates higher than that for Dinnington.

Mr. Hardy: In view of that reply and the serious problem which unemployment presents in my constituency, will the Minister consider conferring development area rather than intermediate area status on my constituency? Further, will he, please, not dismiss the problem as one caused purely by excessive inflation but realise that the problem in Yorkshire is caused by historical and technological changes in the nature of our industry?

Mr. Smith: I agree that there are a number of reasons why the situation has come about. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for the apportionment of development or intermediate area status, but I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secre-

tary of State for Trade and Industry on that point.

North-East Lancashire

3. Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the unemployed figures for North-East Lancashire for October, 1971.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 11th October, 7,815 people were registered as unemployed in the North-East Lancashire intermediate area, and the rate of unemployment was 3·8 per cent.

Mr. Davidson: These figures make depressing reading in that unemployment in this region has more than doubled in the past twelve months. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in particular, one of the most troubling aspects of it, namely, that skilled workers are now unemployed for months on end and are leaving the area in search of work else-where, so that, if industry wants to come to the area in the future, it may be discouraged from doing so because of the absence of skilled workers? Will the hon. Gentleman look into this particular problem?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir; we are constantly looking into the problem. I know that there has been an increase, but at the moment the figure is roughly in line with the national percentage. I hope that the rate of increase will now tail off in this area, and, certainly, that the North-East Lancashire intermediate area will benefit from the already massive efforts directed there by the Government.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the disastrous decision to terminate on 1st January quotas on imported textiles, would my hon. Friend care to forecast what unemployment in this area is likely to be in January and February next year?

Mr. Smith: No, Sir. I do not give forecasts, and nor did the Opposition when they were in office. We are well aware of concern among people in the textile industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said quite recently that the fortunes of the industry are kept under constant review, and I am sure that if my hon. Friend has a word with the Minister for Industry he will be able to press his case further.

Publishing and Printing Industry Training Board

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Employment why it is necessary for companies whose annual turn-over is such that they are exempted from payment of the levy to the Publishing and Printing Industry Training Board still to be obliged to complete this training board's requests for statistical and other in formation.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): As I informed my hon. Friend by letter last September, the Printing and Publishing Board has statutory responsibilities under Section 2 of the Industrial Training Act to the whole of the industry. It informs me that it could not discharge those responsibilities effectively if the information it collected came exclusively from firms due to pay levy.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that many companies within the industry are not happy with the present structure and organisation, and that to impose this form of bureaucracy upon those small companies is hardly consistent with the Government's attitude towards easing the position of the smaller companies?

Mr. Bryan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the dissatisfaction felt in many quarters about the industrial training boards. That is one of the reasons why we are having a deep review of the situation, the results of which will be published before the end of the year. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, the Board levies only one-third of the firms in the industry, so if it obtains statistics from only one-third it would not have the true picture of the industry which is required.

Training Centre (Derbyshire)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will set up a new Government training centre in Derbyshire in 1972.

Mr. Bryan: A new Centre will he located in the Chesterfield-Mansfield-Alfreton area. These facilities should benefit Derbyshire.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend realise

that, while that is sufficient for the time being, there is a growing need for retraining centres if we are to tackle the problem of unemployment? The more retraining centres we have to give alternative skills to working people, the better it will be for the economy.

Mr. Bryan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is more than aware of that. That is why we are having a very big drive to increase our training in that direction. As to my hon. Friend's local problem, we already have our eyes on a site at Kirkby-in-Ashfield, and we hope to get going on it quite soon. It should be a help to my hon. Friend's area.

Mrs. Castle: When shall we have the details of the massive expansion of training and retraining facilities which we were promised as long ago as the General Election? We are still waiting.

Mr. Bryan: If the right hon. Lady had listened to the replies over the past two months she would know that an awful lot is happening. Not only are the G.T.C.s being expanded at considerable speed but our drive to get private employers to co-operate with us to let us use their spare capacity is a feature which will grow very much as time goes on.

Mrs. Castle: That is a very interesting reply. Of course I am aware of those answers, but we were led to believe during the General Election campaign that there was a remarkable new plan to be put before us for a more massive expansion of training than ever before visualised in our history. Are we to take it that these little driblets of expansion are the sum total of the massive expansion we were told about?

Mr. Bryan: The right hon. Lady knows from her own experience that it takes time, but with the drive we are putting behind it, I think that I can guarantee that she will not be asking that sort of question in three years' time.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made of the effects on the levels of unemployment of labour-intensive industries, for example ship-building, of the ending of the regional employment premium in 1974.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The Regional Employment Premium is only one of a number of measures to help employment in the development areas and it is impossible to estimate the effect of any one measure in isolation.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to publish any correspondence between himself and ship-building companies about the way in which they might be discounting the effects of the R.E.P. in their quotations for ships at present?

Mr. Carr: I think that I am right to treat correspondence with me personally as confidential to the correspondents. Under our policy, R.E.P. is continuing, for the full seven years for which it was introduced, because we felt that it was right to keep that pledge made by the previous Government. But our attitude to it is that it is not the most effective way of spending £106 million a year in helping employment in the development areas.

Mrs. Knight: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the possible beneficial effects on the shipbuilding industry of orders to build frigates to send to South Africa, as we were honourably committed to do under the Simonstown Agreement?

Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend's question is not one for me, but she and the House will know that we have recently announced naval orders of great importance for employment, particularly in the Clyde area. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will no doubt give the House the details.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that not only are we worried about shipbuilding but that in Liverpool and Merseyside we are worried about the declining state of the ship repair industry? We gave up the greatest and largest graving dock in this country—the Gladstone Graving Dock in Liverpool—to facilitate a temporary-container berth. As the new £40 million Seaforth Container Dock is nearly completed, can the right hon. Gentleman promise us that our graving dock will revert to its normal use?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking me questions on matters for which I am not

responsible, though I know of the concern felt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the total number employed in shipbuilding and ship repair has increased slightly in the past 12 months, and not decreased, as so many people seem to think.

Northern Region

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have been made redundant in the Northern Region since June, 1964.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Records of the number of redundancies in all industries including those in the construction and shipbuilding industries for the Northern Region were not kept before 1969.
During the two years 1st January, 1967, to 31st December, 1968, there were 35,200 recorded redundancies in industries other than construction and shipbuilding in the Northern Region. From 1st January, 1969, to 31st October, 1971, the number recorded as due to become redundant in all industries and services was 44,200.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of redundancies since the Government came to office constitutes a disgraceful achievement of Government policies? In my constituency, 12½ per cent. of the men have become unemployed since 1964, and for every 70 out of work there is one vacancy. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his miserable Government and the policies they have imposed upon the regions have been disastrous?

Mr. Smith: As he studies the figures, the hon. Gentleman will see that the regions had a large number of redundancies under his Administration. The last Government bear a large share of the responsibility for the present high rate of unemployment, and it is hypocritical of Labour hon. Members to pretend otherwise. Instead of arguing about who is responsible, we are trying to cure the situation.

Social Work Programmes (Young People)

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department is involved in a project for


unemployed young people to be employed by the Government in social work programmes.

Mr. David Howell: My Department, in consultation with other interested Departments, is giving urgent consideration to proposals from the National Association of Youth Clubs for special work groups of young unemployed people.

Mr. Holland: In giving that urgent consideration, will my hon. Friend bear very much in mind the importance of combating the demoralising effect of enforced idleness on the minds of young people who are right at the beginning of their working lives?

Mr. Howell:: We will certainly bear that very much in mind. These are interesting and valuable ideas.

Register of Trade Unions

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many unions have remained on the provisional register of trade unions, and how many have become organisations of workers.

Mr. R. Carr: I am informed by the Registrar that there were 268 organisations of workers entered on the provisional register on 5th November. Before that date he had removed at their own request 76 organisations from the provisional register.

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many trade unions are having to go to the expense of holding special conferences and securing changes of rule to come off the register, and that the vast majority of trade unions are determined to go through these procedures so that they do not go on to the register?

Mr. Carr: I cannot say what unions should decide to do about changing their rules. That is their own affair. As to the point raised in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we shall have to let time pass and see what the ultimate answer is.

Mr. Heffer: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that under the Industrial Relations Act the question of

changing the rules is not entirely the unions' affair? It is very much determined by the existence of the Act itself. Is he not aware that because of the Act problems have been created in the trade union movement which never existed before, that divisions within the movement have arisen which never existed before, and that the Government are totally responsible for the situation?

Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that there are also great opportunities which never existed before for the trade unions, as time will show. There is a great obligation on both sides because we believe, as we have debated in the House before, that when organisations like employers' associations and trade unions claim, quite rightly, to exercise the amount of influence which they wield in our economy and public affairs, it is right that they should be accountable to the public.

Mr. Adam Butler: Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to encourage the trade unions to draw to the attention of their members the benfits of staying on the register and the severe risk which they run if they come off it?

Mr. Carr: Certainly I will. I will do all I can to draw to everyone's attention the benefits of the provisions of the Act.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the alleged 268 unions remaining on the register are staff associations and similar bodies, employer-dominated and frequently employer-financed?

Mr. Carr: If they are employer-dominated, the Act will ensure that they cannot remain on the register even if they wish to do so. The names of the 268 are available to the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, since the register is open to the public.

Work-in Situations

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements of an administrative nature his Department has made for work-in situations.

Mr. Bryan: My Department's normal practice of keeping in touch with developments in disputes covers such situations.

Mr. Duffy: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that work-ins such as that which recently occurred at U.C.S. and that which is already beginning at the River Don steel works, Sheffield, require much more than that? Does not he agree that his Department by now should be showing some appreciation of its responsibility for this fundamentally important area, that is, the worker's day at work? For example, how will his work-in affect the worker in the stamping of his card, or in the responsibility for industrial injury or industrial disease, or in the reckoning of service for pension, or in his access to company-based canteen and sports clubs? This is just the beginning of the thinking which the Department should be displaying evidence of doing. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to undertake early consultations with the T.U C. about these matters?

Mr. Bryan: This sort of situation is fairly new and is obviously something which my Department is studying carefully. That can be guaranteed. For redundancies and so on, we have the well-known "job teams" and all the drill associated with them. But this is a new situation which makes it extremely hard for our normal drill to operate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are studying the situation.

Expenditure (Scotland)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what sums his Department paid out in Scotland last year, and what is the amount paid out in 1971 to date in absolute terms and at an annual rate, respectively.

Mr. Bryan: Since this answer is somewhat complicated, I will with permission publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: May I remind the Minister of State that the Secretary of State has said that he himself was disappointed and surprised by the very high unemployment figures? I and others representing the regions have been telling the hon. Gentleman for months that Government policies are inadequate to deal with the unemployment situation. Will he now recognise, on reflection, that the amount of money being paid out is a waste to the country and that the manpower could be used, if the Government's

policies were changed, in order to give these people the jobs which they so earnestly desire?

Mr. Bryan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I took the trouble to find out what was behind his Question, and I think that even now there is a misunderstanding. The amount of money used by the Government towards generating emplayment comes from the Departments of Trade and Industry and the Environment. The spending in that direction by this Department is not particularly big. We are responsible for spending on training services and so on, and this is not relevant to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Following is the information:

Sums paid out by the Department of Employment in Scotland



Approximate figure in millions of £


Financial year 1970-71
135


Six months April-September, 1971
66


[Annual rate per year 1971-72]
113


Sums paid out by Department of Employment as agents for Department of Health and Social Security in Scotland



Millions of £


Financial year 1970-71
37·1


Six months April-September, 1971
25·1

School Leavers (South-West Durham)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many July school leavers remain unemployed in the South-West Durham Employment Ex-change areas.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am glad to say that, of the estimated 1,600 young people who left school at the end of the summer term, 1,489 had found jobs by 11th October. This leaves 111 still registered as unemployed.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is still very unsatisfactory? Will he ask the Secretary of State to increase the amount of training facilities and training grants immediately, and also to second from his Department officers to make better contacts with youth employment officers and employers so that the maximum number of jobs and training facilities can be found for these young people?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have appointed extra career officers and the whole question of training is kept under constant review. Training has been increased. But I appreciate that the position is still not satisfactory in the hon. Member's area. The problem is not so much that of the school leaver as such as that of the less-well-qualified young person who has had two or three jobs but is now entering on a period of longer unemployment. That is the problem with which we have to get to grips.

Code of Industrial Relations Practice

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will submit the Code of Industrial Relations Practice to Parliament for approval.

Mr. R. Carr: I hope to do so shortly after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Page: While the code is still in draft, will my right hon. Friend make one more personal appeal to the T.U.C. to show responsibility to the members of its unions and give its views on the document?

Mr. Carr: The T.U.C. collectively is in no doubt of my willingness and, indeed, eagerness to consult it. That is well known. But I should like to take this opportunity to repeat it.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the operation of the Act is already causing divisive actions within industry over the question of staff unions seeking registration and over problems such as those occurring in the Fire Brigades Union with its London members? Is not this a recipe for industrial unrest, and will it not increase? The code is absolute nonsense and there is no point in this situation in the T.U.C. discussing it with him.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is extremely ill informed about what is going on throughout industry. Even in its present form, the code is stimulating a degree of discussion and consideration amongst managements throughout the country—whose primary responsibility it is, we are all agreed, to initiate the right sort of changes—to an extent which exceeds my expectations. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I remind

him that the difficulties arise only through those bodies which choose to deny themselves the great benefits of registration.

Occupational Guidance Service

Mr. Hornby: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what improvements he is planning in his Department's Occupational Guidance Service.

Mr. Dudley Smith:: The future development of the Occupational Guidance Service is being currently examined as part of a general review of my Department's employment services. My right hon. Friend is to make a statement on the results of this review before the end of the year.

Mr. Hornby: I welcome that statement, but would not my hon. Friend agree that at a time when skills are changing fast and when, under any Government, employment problems are likely to be obstinate and serious for some time to come, this is a subject which needs very careful examination? Will he bring forward at the earliest possible date the information which he is collecting on the subject with a view to making the services which may be available known to as wide a public as possible?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. The importance of this is fully accepted by my Department. Since the service was introduced in 1966, it has been steadily expanded from the original 12 experimental units and now has 44 centres available in large urban areas. The latest one is being opened tomorrow. Advice has so far been given to 140,000 people and the service is running at the annual rate of 40,000 cases.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if, as he claims, the importance of improving the employment services is fully realised by his Department, he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are adopting a very curious way of showing it, since proposals for a fundamental transformation and modernisation of the employment services were well advanced before I left his Department over 16 months ago? What is the reason for the delay, and may we at last have some action as a priority over attacking the trade unions?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Lady's words were not the last on this subject. We want to get it absolutely right, and that is why we have taken quite a while in studying the proposals. But, as we have said today, they will be announced before the end of the year.

West Midlands

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy with regard to the level of unemployment in the West Midlands as indicated by the latest figures ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robert Carr: I regard the present level of unemployment as unacceptably high. The Government have already taken very substantial measures to stimulate output throughout the economy and I am confident that the West Midlands, with its strong and diversified industrial base, is well-equipped to take advantage of the expansion which should result from these measures.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the West Midlands he is regarded as a genius—the only man in 40 years to bring widespread and long-term unemployment? If this is to he the fate under a Tory Government of one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, regions of Britain, what hope is there for the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the depressed areas?

Mr. Carr: I think that history will prove that we are initiating the first real expansion of the economy since there was last a Conservative Government in office. The main cause of our trouble is that we are reaping the bitter fruit of six years of stagnation which culminated with the biggest cost-inflation in our history since the war.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that unemployment in the West Midlands is 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. compared with 7½ per cent. on Clydebank and even higher elsewhere? May I, as a West Midlands Member, ask him not to change the Government's policies, which will certainly lead to success in the early future?

Mr. Carr:: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he indicated, the Government

have given a bigger stimulus to the economy than has ever been given in a single year.

Dr. Gilbert: As there has been a considerable increase in the number of redundancies in the West Midlands ever since the last figures were announced, and as there is no hope of the regions being prosperous without the heartland of British industry being prosperous, will the right hon. Gentleman consider trying to influence his colleagues to take a more relaxed view of granting industrial development certificates in the near future?

Sir G. Nabarro: No, certainly not.

Mr. Carr: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a question for me. But if the measures we have taken in our first year of office—the biggest ever taken in a single year to stimulate the economy— are too late, they should have been taken the year before when the Labour Party was in power.

Industrial Relations Act, 1971

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the approximate total of those expected to be involved in conciliation work in his Department when the Industrial Relations Act becomes fully operative, as compared with the current figure.

Mr. Bryan: About 140 officers are at present involved in conciliation work, mainly in the regions. It is expected that up to 100 more will be required to deal with complaints by individuals mainly about unfair dismissals

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that on this aspect of industrial relations there is unlikely to be a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House about the new emphasis which is being placed on the question of conciliation and producing a better service for it?

Mr. Bryan: I think that all Members would agree with what my hon. Friend said. As he knows, the Act puts great stress on conciliation, and the conciliation services under the present Government are every bit as busy as they used to be under the Labour Administration, despite the criticism we have had from the Opposition.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply, why have his officials advised employers in the West Midlands to discontinue the Coventry toolroom agreement?

Mr. Bryan: The answer is that they have not.

Oldham

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current unemployment rate in Oldham ; and what steps he is taking to reduce it.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 11th October the rate of unemployment for Oldham and Chadderton travel-to-work area was 3·3 per cent. The Government have already taken many measures to stimulate output, investment and employment throughout the country. Oldham is in a good position to benefit from these measures.

Mr. Meacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the rate of unemployment of full-time workers in my area during the last three months has been 52 per cent., which is second only to the figure for East Anglia? Is he further aware that mills in the North-West are closing at the unprecendented rate of one a week? In these circumstances, will he consult his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that the North-West gets at least its fair share of public investment, which it is not getting at the moment?

Mr. Smith: I am prepared to have words with my right hon. Friend on this subject. I am glad that the figure for Oldham is still below the national average, despite what the hon. Gentleman says. The total of new Government aid specifically aimed at creating jobs is about £400 million, which is a massive injection and will certainly benefit Oldham.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: While we must recognise that unemployment is a very serious problem in certain industries and certain areas, does it not give us ground for optimism to reflect that the rise in the number of people wholly unemployed for six months has been less than 50,000 since the Government took office?

Mr. Smith: The number of people unemployed for over six months expressed

as a percentage of all unemployment was 29·2 per cent. The longer-term unemployed figure remained a relatively constant proportion of all those unemployed over the last four years, although undoubtedly the number of unemployed people has gone up. But the figure for the longer-term unemployed is considerably less than the overall figure.

Mr. Rose: With regard to the Oldham area, will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that it is the Government's intention to cancel the contract for the HS748? Does he admit that recently the Government preferred to purchase abroad rather than from Ferranti and that, as a result, there are 2,500 redundancies from Hawker Siddeley? Does he admit that he has created a depressed area and an enlarged number of unemployed skilled workers in what hitherto has been one of the more prosperous areas of the country?

Mr. Smith: Without accepting one word of what the hon. Gentleman has said, may I point out that he has been a Member long enough to know that these are not questions for me, even though they may be very interesting.

Employment Exchanges (Premises)

Mr. David James: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken to improve the premises used as employment exchanges.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Department of the Environment, which is responsible for the accommodation of Government Departments, has a continuous programme of work designed to improve employment exchange premises. Since January this year, 121 exchanges have been rehoused in better premises and major improvements completed in another 115. Higher standards of decoration and furniture are constantly being introduced.

Mr. James: I welcome that reply, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many employment exchanges are still very depressing places for those who work in them and for the unemployed? Will he redouble his efforts in this respect?

Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. We place the utmost importance on developing the quality of service in


our employment exchanges, particularly as the employment situation improves. Therefore, the right environment for their operation is of major importance.

Mr. Rose: Apart from the general condition of employment exchanges, would the Minister say exactly what his plans are, in view of the harmful effects of registration under the Immigration Act, to provide extra staff, extra amenities and extra accommodation for those immigrants who now have to register under that iniquitous provision?

Mr. Smith: I think, with respect, that that goes rather wide of the original Question. I must have notice of it. But if extra staff are needed this is a matter which will have to be considered.

Disabled Persons (Work Opportunities)

Mr. Waddington: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made with the new initiative he announced during the last Session of Parliament to help those disabled seeking employment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My Department's officials, in collaboration with Rotary International and the other organisations with whom I had talks earlier this year, have made many useful contacts and some placings of disabled people have already stemmed directly from these. The consequent publicity on behalf of disabled people has probably helped in a very difficult employment situation. In the last four weeks some 4,800 jobs were found.
Two new industrial rehabilitation units have been opened this year and we are continuing to expand our training facilities.

Mr. Waddington: Will the Minister recall the importance which he attached in this context to the grants for the retraining of unemployed older workers? What has been the take-up of those grants?

Mr. Smith: I think I must have notice of that question, but there has been a general improvement since these original initiatives were announced. What I would say to my hon. and learned Friend is that we do not intend just to let matters lie. We are continuing with these initiatives on various fronts.

Mr. Pavitt: Would the Minister convey the thanks and appreciation of the many thousands of disabled people to the disablement and rehabilitation officers at the local exchanges, and, at the same time, will he have another look at the instructions in relation to the disability of deafness? At the moment no distinction is drawn between being deaf and being hard of hearing, and in consequence there is rather more difficulty than there would be if the instructions were a little more clear cut.

Mr. Smith: Yes, I will certainly do that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments about the officers, who are now full-time specialist placement officers, and as he probably knows, those responsible in the past year have made placings at the rate of 68,000. They are doing a very good job.

Mr. Marten: Is the percentage of unemployed disabled now falling?

Mr. Smith: The percentage of disabled unemployed placing has inevitably fallen in a situation in which there is high unemployment. More efforts are being made, but in this situation that has not prevented the number of disabled unemployed from growing. But the position has shown, I believe, definite benefit from the efforts which have been made by my Department.

Employment Trends (Inquiry)

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will institute an independent inquiry into the reasons for the growth in unemployment over the past five years, and the long-term problems which the changing patterns of employment will cause.

Mr. R. Carr: I have no present plans to institute an independent inquiry. But I have already set in train within my Department a programme of study relating to changing trends in employment and the problems to which they may give rise.

Mr. Cormack: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I urge him to think again on the first part of the Question, because such an inquiry would be bound to throw interesting and revealing light on the underlying causes of a situation which is causing grave concern throughout the country?

Mr. Carr: I, of course, agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important to study the problem and to look ahead, but I am not yet convinced either that an independent inquiry is necessary or that it would be beneficial. I am keeping the matter very mach in mind.

Mr. Bagier: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his Department to ask what have been the effects of the change from industrial grants to allowances? Is he aware that in the North-East, in the period from January to October this year, there have been industrial development certificates providing some 4,172 jobs but that this must be compared with the same period in previous years in which there were well over 10,000? Will he ask his Department to inquire how seriously this policy affects employment in development areas?

Mr. Carr: As I said in reply to an earlier Question, when we have a package of measures, as we have, in employment policy, it is impossible to isolate the effects of any one of them. Our development area policy includes, for example, new encouragement to service industries. which are the most labour-intensive industries and will, as a package, be more effective than what has existed previously.

Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, while technological developments have led to a certain increase in unemployment, the basic reason for the increase in unemployment over the last year has been the failure of his Government to introduce measures to deal with the problem, and that this Government are responsible because of their change from investment grants to investment allowances, and because of their policies in relation to I.D.Cs? In fact, their whole policy has failed, and they cannot dodge behind the argument that it was the workers or the previous Government who were responsible.

Mr. Carr: I do not agree with the hon. Member in any of that analysis. What is true is that we are suffering as a result of six years of stagnation. We are busy putting that stagnation to an end. We have introduced into the economy a bigger boost than has ever been introduced in a single year. If that were too late in our first year then it ought to have

been introduced under the previous Government.

Mrs. Castle: Then will the right hon. Gentleman admit that it was always untrue to say that unemployment could be dealt with "at a stroke"?

Mr. Carr: We said we would take measures quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"]—and that is what we have done. and will do.

PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received about unemployment in the Coventry and Nuneaton areas.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to Questions from the hon. Members for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).—[Vol. 825, c. 825.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Prime Minister aware that by continuing to give answers like this he is tending to turn Prime Minister's Question Time into a futile farce? Is he also aware that answers like this give my constituency the impression that he just does not care about unemployment? Is he aware that there is widespread concern in Coventry that it is his Government's deliberate policy to turn the area into a battleground over the toolroom agreement so that our trade unions can finally be crushed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely wrong. It the hon. Gentleman has a specific question which he wishes to ask about detailed figures for employment, or about unemployment in a particular area, he can put it, like every other hon. and right hon. Member, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. What I must explain to the House is that t am not prepared to set up at No. 10 an enormous organisation which none of my predecessors has had, to take detailed note of every one of the 90,000 letters I receive a year setting out specific views and dealing, as many individual letters do, with a variety of subjects. I am not prepared to set up an organisation to take


note of all the views expressed in them. That has never been done and I do not propose to set up that organisation now.
Furthermore, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that whenever a letter at No. 10 requires Departmental action it is immediately, within 24 hours, sent to the appropriate Department for action. To expect Whitehall Departments to dig through their files to find the answers to questions of that kind is entirely unjustified.

Mr. Adam Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers at Rolls-Royce in Coventry and in Derby and elsewhere are grateful to the Government for saving the RB211 contract and thereby saving their jobs?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that is absolutely true. The plain fact was that the Government, quite rightly, made an enormous effort in co-operation with the American Administration to ensure that the RB21I went on and a much better contract was signed. This is now going on, and I would have thought the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been pleased about it.

Mr. Edelman: In this connection, will not the Prime Minister repudiate the action of Rolls-Royce at Coventry in locking out toolroom workers, thus precipitating a breakdown in the talks on the Coventry toolroom agreement? Will he now use his authority in order to get Rolls-Royce to withdraw the lock-out notices so that talks can resume?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows very well, this is a complicated dispute over the toolroom agreement, in which both sides have expressed their views and taken action, and I do not propose to make a judgment on one side or the other.

PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to make a Ministerial broadcast.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to an identical Question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).—[Vol. 825, c. 124.]

Mr. Davidson: I read that answer with considerable interest. None the less, will the Prime Minister use at least part of any future broadcast he may make to reassure citizens who are living here law-fully and peacefully but who are being spied upon by agents of foreign Powers such as South Africa that this practice is totally abhorrent to the British public and totally against the British traditions of freedom under the law?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have made plain in the House in this Session that if any offence is committed in this respect, action will be taken. This is another example of a Question which has nothing to do with a Ministerial broadcast.

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to include in his Government a Minister with sole responsibility for price control.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to Questions from himself and from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter).—[Vol. 825, c. 125.]

Mr. Skinner: If the Prime Minister were to appoint a Minister for Price Control, that Minister would have no authority because he would be undermined by a Secretary of State who is sponsoring inflation by inflicting savage rent increases, by a Department of Trade and Industry which is obsessed with sacking people and by a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is busily instructing employers, including the National Coal Board, to cut back real wages. Does not the Prime Minister realise that this is not a free-for-all but the survival of the wealthiest?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir R. Thompson: Is my right lion. Friend aware that statutory responsibility for price control involves wage and salary control, from which the previous Government shied away and which is odious to the trade unions and unacceptable to employers?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the general tenor of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. He is not entirely


correct in saying that the previous Administration shied away from wage and salary control. They first went for guidelines, then voluntary restraint, then compulsory legal restraint and they then abandoned the whole lot and now have no policy of any kind.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Prime Minister now say whether his Government are in favour of salary control?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that arises.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Spearing: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Employment on arrangements for entering the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State and his officials are closely concerned with all issues arising from entry which will affect the Department.

Mr. Spearing: In view of the Prime Minister's satisfaction, will he tell us when the Government expect to publish the details of how acceptance of the labour mobility rules of the Treaty of Rome will affect all categories of Commonwealth and United Kingdom citizens who are working in this country?

The Prime Minister: This has been described at various times in the debates on Europe. Any statutory requirements will come in the legislation to be introduced in the New Year.

ST. HELENA

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to St. Helena.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are 5,000 coloured

British subjects on the Island of St. Helena who are bitterly resentful that the economic and social life of the island is gradually being taken over by South African interests? Is he further aware that I have been threatened with a libel action should I make public certain statements made to me by islanders about their grievances concerning South African interests?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in this matter, on which he has expressed considerable concern. He had a talk with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about it. As he will acknowledge, he did not give the authorship of the threats that were made, and in these circumstances it is not possible to inquire into them. On the allegation about South African influence in the island, the view which has been expressed to us is that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to the extent of this influence, but if he will provide us with further information about his anxieties we are perfectly prepared to look into them.

Sir H. Harrison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that when I and an hon. Gentleman opposite went on an official delegation to St. Helena six years ago we found that the 4,000 inhabitants were completely loyal to the British Crown, that a good multiracial society existed and that there was then no influence from South Africa.

The Prime Minister: That was the position; I fully realise that. It is possible that there has been a change since, but the advice we have received is that it does not correspond with the hon. Gentleman's fears. I repeat, if there is genuine anxiety about this, we are prefectly prepared to make further inquiries.

U.S.A. (PRIME MINISTERS VISIT)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to seek to pay an official visit to the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make a further visit to the United States.

Dr. Gilbert: Does the Prime Minister recall that when, before the Summer Recess, I drew his attention to the growth of economic nationalism on both sides of the Atlantic, he tended to pooh-pooh the gravity of the problem? In the light of President Nixon's ruthless package of measures last August, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take this matter more seriously and to suggest any initiative which the Government might take to reverse the trend towards protectionism?

The Prime Minister: I have always taken seriously the danger of the growth of protectionism in any part of the world. I have long realised the problems which exist. In the Kennedy Round, for the handling of which I was in part responsible when I was at the Board of Trade, we endeavoured to overcome many of the protectionist influences at work, quite apart from individual questions of tariff. On the present position, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acknowledged to have taken a lead in the discussions in the Group of Ten in an attempt to find an arrangement which is acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic, in order not only to prevent the growth of protectionism but to deal also with some of the obstacles which have recently arisen.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not clear that on this matter of protection we have a common interest with the six member countries of the E.E.C. in stopping and reversing any tendency towards greater restrictionism? In his communications with President Nixon, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this is the way in which we propose to work?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the last 25 years, ever since the end of the Second World War, we have been trying to expand multilateral trading arrangements, and that is still our purpose.

GREECE

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek a meeting with the Prime Minister of Greece.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Fraser: That is a welcome reply, but will the Prime Minister discourage his other Ministers from allowing such things as courtesy visits by Greek ships to the Thames? Will he also instruct the Home Office not to allow members of the Greek secret political police, who have been responsible for the torture of Greek political prisoners, to come to this country and to look at the activities of Greek expatriates who are opposed to the Fascism in Greece?

The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of the latter point, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have the information either I or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will gladly inquire into it. Courtesy visits of ships and officers are customary amongst N.A.T.O. members and are carried on by all major member countries.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the visit of British troops to Greece is widely used as propaganda in favour of the Greek regime? Will he see that such visits stop?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure about visits of troops having taken place. I repeat, there are many accepted visits of this kind in N.A.T.O. countries, and it is the wish of the Commander-in-Chief that they should continue.

UNEMPLOYMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mrs. RenÉe Short: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination existing between the Secretaries of State for Employment and the Environment in solving the problem of unemployment, especially in the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer described to the House on Tuesday the various Government measures aimed at reducing the level of unemployment throughout the country, including the West Midlands.

Mrs. Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that these measures are singularly unsuccessful, in that unemployment in the West Midlands is steadily moving towards 8 per cent? Is he also aware


that if his two Secretaries of State were to set about a comprehensive and energetic house-building programme, which is so urgently needed throughout the West Midlands, this would provide employment to people who are without work and at the same time get people out of the deplorable housing conditions in which they live? Will he consider setting up a special house-building association to do this?

The Prime Minister: I discussed the problems of the West Midlands when I visited that area during the recess and met the Economic Planning Council. There is no doubt that the improvement grants which were introduced by my right hon. Friend are now having a consider-able effect. Similarly, there is an improvement in the private sector of house building, and I should have thought that in the West Midlands many local authorities were also putting a particular drive behind local authority housing.

NAVAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME

The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper for answer:

Dame Irene Ward: to ask the Minister of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to give details of the recently announced accelerated naval construction programme.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer written Question No. 31.
We shall be placing contracts in the course of the next few days for the construction of four Type 21 frigates by Yarrow's on the Upper Clyde, of two Type 42 destroyers and two small fleet tankers by Swan Hunter on Tyneside, for the design and construction of two fleet replenishment ships and of a research vessel by Scott's on the Lower Clyde, and for a survey ship and two salvage vessels by Robb Caledon, largely at Leith. A number of other orders for small auxiliary craft will also be placed before long.
These orders will provide significant employment in shipbuilding firms in the development areas. During the next year

they should create or preserve over 4,000 jobs for workers directly employed on our orders. Indirect employment in the shipyards will also be increased and, moreover, about the same number of jobs will be provided in sub-contracting firms throughout the country.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that good news and for the speed with which the programme has been designed. What will be the likely starting date, and will he also bear in mind that the more naval ships we can have the better I shall be pleased?

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and share her views. Work will begin in all cases immediately. although at Scott's some preliminary design work will be necessary first.

Mr. Dell: Could the Minister say whether Cammell Laird tendered for any of these orders and, if so, why no orders have been allocated to that yard in view of the high unemployment on Merseyside?

Mr. Gilmour: The answer is simple. Cammell Laird has no additional capacity at present. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the summer we placed two orders for Type 42 destroyers with Cammell Laird, and they are managing to lay the first one only in February and the next one in October of next year.

Mr. Woodnutt: Could my hon. Friend say whether in these four cases the lowest tender was accepted?

Mr. Gilmour: No. As my hon. Friend knows, this was an exercise not only to help the Navy but also to help employment. It was therefore confined to development areas and intermediate areas.

Mr. Small: I thank the Minister for his reply, and certainly Yarrow and my constituency will greatly welcome it. Can he say whether the labour force at Yarrow will be increased arising out of the contract?

Mr. Gilmour: The order placed with Yarrow will have the effect of either creating or preserving something like 1,000 jobs.

Mr. James Hill: Can my hon. Friend assure me that all the orders will not go


completely to the development areas, since we have shipyards in the south which require work of this type?

Mr. Gilmour: I am well aware of that but, as I have said, this was a special exercise to help not only the Navy but employment.

Mr. Urwin: The hon. Gentleman referred to the preservation or creation of 4,000 jobs in the industry. Can he be more specific and say how many new jobs are estimated to be created in the northern region following the announcement? Whatever the number, does he not think this will be but a drop in the ocean compared with overall requirements in the northern region?

Mr. Gilmour: The work at Swan Hunter will have the effect of occupying 1,400 men directly as well as involving all the side effects this work will have. In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's final comment was not very generous.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY,15TH NOVEMBER— Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill.

TUESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER and WEDNESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.

At the end on Tuesday, Motions on Procedure, and at the end on Wednesday, Motions on the Industrial Court (Appeals) Orders and the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations.

THURSDAY,18TH NOVEMBER— Supply (1st allotted day): There will be a debate on Education, which will arise on an Opposition Motion. Motion on the White Fish Subsidy Scheme.

FRIDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Superannuation Bill. Motions on the Representation of the People Parliamentary Constituencies Orders.

MONDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government intend to have an early debate on Northern Ireland ; indeed, they probably would have been willing to have had such a debate next week although, for reasons for which I am responsible, it might he convenient to some of us to have it the following week. If we are to expect publication of the Compton Report, would the right hon. Gentleman agree to consider whether that report should be debated as part of the general debate on Northern Ireland, or should it be considered on its merits when we receive it?
I welcome the two days allocated to the Local Government Bill, though I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not allocated the same time to the Housing Finance Bill. Has he yet taken any decision about the recommendations he will make about part of the Local Government Bill going upstairs and, if so, which parts does he envisage going upstairs since some are more clearly suited to the Floor of the House than others?
Thirdly, on the questions which were put to him in the recent debate about the form of Common Market legislation, are we to take it, as a result of inquiries we have made, that the Leader of the House is quite genuinely in the situation that at the moment he does not know how many Bills there will be and what the form will be? No doubt he will report to the House as soon as he can.
Is he now in a position to answer an important question I put to him the other evening—it was somewhat noisy on that occasion, and perhaps he may not have appreciated its purpose—namely, that since there will be an enormous amount of legislation the purpose of which will be to replace existing commercial, company and much other legislation which has been hammered out in this House over the years line by line and clause by clause, there will be no proposal to replace that under the Statutory Instrument procedure; and that, whatever is to be the new law to be recommended to the House it will be similarly debated, with all the normal stages involving the power of amendment in both Committee and on Report?

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I should reply first to the right hon. Gentleman's last point. The detailed studies necessary for the preparation of this European legislation are now being carried out, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. The legislation will be introduced in the new year. In the mean-time I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to consider during the preparation of the legislation any representations that might be made to me through the usual channels or from right hon. and hon. Members in the House. I think that is the best way to proceed.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the procedure on Northern Ireland, and I am grateful to him for what he said. The Government will fit in with his proposal for a debate on Northern Ireland and will consult through the usual channels about timing to fit in with the various arrangements. The Compton Report will be published early next week and I note what the right hon. Gentleman said.
The Government propose to send the Local Government Bill upstairs to a large Standing Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the procedure Motions on Tuesday night be confined to the less controversial recommendations of the Select Committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer is that, as I promised the House when I made the statement, I would put down on the first occasion only those proposals which seemed to be non-controversial, I shall do so. The main controversial one, which I know concerns Scottish hon. Members, I shall put down next week. I shall put it down in good time, and I give an undertaking that it will not be put down late at night. I intend to give more time to that matter than is normally the case, and I hope it will be before 10 o'clock.

Mr. George Thomas: Since the Leader of the House must have been told by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales of the deep resentment in the Principality that the Welsh proposals have been tagged on with local government reform in England,

will the right hon. Gentleman now ensure that the Welsh part of the Bill is discussed on the Floor of the House where every Welsh constituency Member can play his proper part?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted the Motion on the Order Paper. It was partly for that reason that, very much against the precedents and in a way which the previous Government never did, I decided that it was right to give two days for the Second Reading of this Bill, in view of the Welsh point made by the right hon. Gentleman and the strength of the case. As for the Committee stage, it was my view that it was right to send the whole Bill upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] But I believe that there will he opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members on Report later on.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no action will be taken on any reorganisation of the police force without a debate in Parliament? Will he bear in mind that I am most anxious, as I am sure the whole House will be, that we do not have any controversy with regard to the police force, and will he hear in mind that I am all on the side of the police?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the important points that my Friend has made.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Leader of the House imagine that, simply because he thinks that Motions on procedure are non-controversial, they will be non-debatable? They will need to be examined in very great detail, even though they may be non-controversial. Will he also give an early undertaking that he will provide a day for a debate on the televising of the proceedings of this House, that being particularly propitious in view of his clownish and irresponsible behaviour on Tuesday night?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the hon. Gentle-man's first point, I undertook to have discussions through the usual channels about these procedure Motions. I have done that. I put them down after such consultations. Time will be available on Tuesday night for debating them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the


time given thereafter for the Scottish matter is a concession to a Scottish point of view and in accordance with my undertaking.
As for the televising of Parliament, this has always been a matter for the House to decide. If there is a general feeling that it would be right to discuss this matter and take a decision upon it, no one would be more pleased than I. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was one of those who voted for it when it came before this House on a previous occasion, although on that occasion I was, in company with the then Government Chief Whip, in a minority of one. I have not changed my view, and I am only too ready to bring it forward again. But this is a matter for the House as a whole.

Mr. Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman would be the star turn.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend arrange as a matter of considerable urgency for a statement to be made by the Minister of State for Defence on the problem of guarding police stations in Northern Ireland, especially in view of the fact that two police stations have been totally destroyed while the matter has been under consideration in Whitehall?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall of course call this important and serious matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. This and other matters are under consideration in Belfast. I think that that is the right position at the moment.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House noticed Early Day Motion No. 2 in connection with Rhodesia, and the eviction of some 3,500 black tenants from a Methodist settlement? In view of last night's debate, obviously this is not an appropriate time for an immediate further debate upon the matter, but will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the criteria outlined in that Motion?

[That this House does not countenance talks and would refuse any settlement with the rebel regime which has usurped control in Rhodesia unless the Land Tenure Act which designates land into black-occupied and white-occupied area is repealed; and, in particular, would

regard the Rhodesian plan to evict 3,500 African tenants from a British Methodist Church settlement, the Epworth mission's 9,000 acre estate, as proof that Her Majesty's Government could not with honour accord any recognition to Mr. Smith's rule if such evictions take place.]

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I shall do that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary appreciates these matters very well at a time when he is going to Rhodesia.

Mr. Normanton: In view of the deep and widespread concern expressed both inside this House and outside it at the imminent ending of the need to indicate markings of origin on imported materials, will my right hon. Friend consider giving time at an early date for a debate on this very important subject?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sympathetic to this point of view. I could not give time next week, but I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give time fairly soon for a general debate on the future of Government scientific research and development, including the Dainton Report and the question of Lord Rothschild's activities?

Mr. Whitelaw: I realise the interest of the hon. Gentleman in this matter and the amount that he has contributed to discussions on the subject. I also appreciate the importance of the subject. I could not give time at the moment, but certainly I shall bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Jennings: Does my right hon. Friend realise how happy he has made me by saying that he regards the proposals on procedure that he has put down for debate on Tuesday night as non-controversial? Are we to take it that any Amendments that may be tabled—and I hope to table three today—will also be regarded as non-controversial and that, if they were called by you, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to accept them in anticipation?

Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally, I should wish to see the Amendments that my hon. Friend put down to the Motions. The whole matter can be considered and if there were a strong division of feeling in


the House about some of them and the general wish was that I should take them back for further consideration, I should do so.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Recognising the right hon. Gentleman's concession in providing time for the House to debate the controversial matter in respect of the Scottish Committee, may I ask whether this will be done before or after the Second Reading of the Scottish Housing Finance Bill? It would be disgraceful if any limitation were placed on the number of hon. Members who coul dserve on that important Committee.

Mr. Whitelaw: That question gives me an opportunity to clarify what I think was the purpose behind the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure on this matter. It was to bring the position of Scottish Committees into line with that of all Standing Committees of this House. In all Standing Committees of this House, there is always an opportunity to have a larger Committee in specific cases, as is being done on some of the major Bills which we are taking at the moment. Therefore, even if this Motion were passed—and I am not prejudging the issue—that would not stop the Scottish Committee considering the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill being larger than the number of 16. That could be done even if this Motion were passed.

Mr. Scott: In view of the large number of hon. Members likely to want to take part in the debate on the Housing Finance Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider suspending the rule on Monday evening perhaps for an hour, so as to allow more to take part?

Mr. Whitelaw: I know that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak on this subject. Equally, I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition previously asked for two days. In the circumstances, and if it is the wish of the House, certainly I am prepared to suspend the rule for an hour on Monday night.

Mr. Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the committal Motion on the Local Government Bill, in view of the precedent of the London Government Bill, 1963, when four days were given

on the Floor for the discussion of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 dealing with detailed boundaries?

Mr. Whitelaw: I take note of that point. However, I still feel that, in all the circumstances, my proposition is a reasonable one.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware how disappointed I am that he was not able to arrange a debate on local government finance ahead of the Local Government Bill. He will remember that I pressed him last week to do so. Is he aware that this will have a grave effect on the transfer of North-East Essex to Suffolk? When the Local Government Bill is taken on the Floor, will my right hon. Friend ensure that a Treasury Minister is present to reply to financial questions?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers concerned. I also note what my hon. Friend says about the amount of time, presumably on Report, to be given to the Local Government Bill on the Floor of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must warn the House that we cannot have an unlimited period for these questions.

Mr. Milne: Arising from the right hon Gentlemans' failure to include discussion of employment and job prospects in the North-East in next week's business, will he arrange for an early debate on this subject, as there was a complete absence of any dealing with this important and urgent matter during the debate on the Gracious Speech?

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I could not undertake to give time next week but I will certainly bear in mind the point he has made.

Mr. Crouch: I should not like my right hon. Friend to think that his expressed enthusiasm this afternoon for again considering, after a long time, televising the proceedings of the House will go unnoticed. I for one greatly welcome his enthusiasm, and I hope that he can give


the House some intimation that we may be able before Christmas to debate this important question of presenting Parliament to the public more closely.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have always said that I am ready to respond to the wishes of the House on this matter, and if I receive strong representations from all parts of the House of a desire on the part of right hon. and hon. Members to discuss this particular subject, of course I am prepared to give the opportunity.

Mr. Lawson: Reverting to the question of the Scottish Standing Committee, would the right hon. Gentleman consider a form of words that would give the House the right, if the House or the Opposition so desired, to demand a larger number of Members on a particular Committee.

Mr. Whitelaw: The unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure in no way precluded that, because it would only put the Scottish Standing Committee on exactly the same basis as all the other Standing Committees of the House. In all the other cases in the House, representations about larger Committees are always considered and frequently granted. If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman—I see he is shaking his head—it is fair to say that very much larger Committees will certainly be granted in the case, for example, of the Housing Finance Bill and the Local Government Bill, as has been done in the past on many other Bills, and in all other cases of English and Welsh Measures the consideration of the size of the Committee has always been one to be discussed through the usual channels.

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the meeting of the Ministerial Council of the European Free Trade Association in Geneva on 4th and 5th November, and on my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on 9th November.
In Geneva Ministers unanimously expressed the hope that negotiations between the Communities and the noncandidate members of E.F.T.A. would start soon and be pressed forward as rapidly as possible. We reaffirmed our strong interest that the agreements reached should safeguard, in conformity with the G.A.T.T., the free trade already established in E.F.T.A.
For our part we informed our E.F.T.A. partners that, in accordance with our obligations under the E.F.T.A. Convention, we would be giving notice on 31st December, 1971, of our withdrawal from E.F.T.A. to take effect from 31st December, 1972.
I will, with permission, circulate the full text of the E.F.T.A. Ministerial CommuniquÉ in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In Brussels we made encouraging progress on a number of points.
First of all, in regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, I am glad to be able to report that in accordance with our requests the Community has agreed to offer the Islands free trade in industrial goods within the common external tariff and free trade in agricultural products. In its proposal to us the Community has set out what will apply to the Islands; the rest of the provisions of the treaty and regulations will not. This safeguards the Islands' fiscal position. Most important of all, the Community's proposals would in no way affect the Islands' constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom. I believe that these proposals offer a fair deal for the Islands, and I shall be prepared to commend them to the Island authorities when I see them shortly.
Next we reached agreement on the transition period of two years for which we had asked for the application to our export credit policies of the appropriate Community directive.
I raised again the position which the enlarged Community should adopt towards Papua and New Guinea, which, because of their constitutional position, cannot he associated with the Community. The Community has been examining this, and I am confident that it will be able to respond very soon.
I now come to the issue which took up most of the time of the meeting;


namely, the common fisheries policy. As the House knows, the Community has fully recognised the need for changes, and has acknowledged that the new policy must establish a satisfactory overall balance of advantage for all member countries, new and old.
In an attempt to secure this the Community made some new proposals. As regards access it suggested an initial period of five years, during which everyone would be free to reserve access to fishing grounds within six-mile limits a further period of five years during which this could be continued with the approval of the enlarged Community; and, even after 10 years, provision for exceptional treatment in areas where the local population was mainly dependent upon fishing. The Community suggested for certain strictly limited geographical areas such as the Orkneys and Shetland Isles a special regime to which a 12-mile limit would apply.
While welcoming this move as a genuine attempt towards a solution, I made it clear that it was inadequate both as regards time and access. On time I said that however long the initial period there must be arrangements on a continuing basis subject to review. On access, whilst accepting the case for special treatment for areas where fishing was virtually the only means of livelihood, I explained that this did not go far enough. We had to recognise the needs of all areas where fisheries were of substantial economic and social importance to the stability and development of particular regions and where stocks were already fully exploited by the fishermen traditionally fishing there.
We also discussed the application of the Community's marketing arrangements for fish. Here I was able to welcome its readiness to examine various adjustments which we have requested, and in particular to consider variations in withdrawal prices, improved arrangements for producer organisations, and provision for the marketing of frozen fish.
In view of the complexity of the issues and the interests of the other candidate countries, we were not able to reach agreement on this occasion. Nevertheless the Community, recognising the need for an early settlement, has agreed that we

should hold a special Ministerial meeting on 29th November. In the meantime the Commission has been asked to consult officials from the candidate countries. and report further.
Finally, we reviewed the progress made in drafting the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities, and agreed that we should aim to sign the Treaty in the week before Christmas.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the statement that he has just made will reinforce the misgivings which many of us expressed that Her Majesty's Government should have asked the House to approve the arrangements for entry into the Community before agreement on fisheries and the problems of E.F.T.A. have been reached? Will he assure the House that the Government will not sign the Treaty of Accession or withdraw from E.F.T.A. before a satisfactory agreement has been reached on both these issues?
On the fisheries question, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman three questions? First, have the Six agreed to the proposal which he promised the House on 25th October he would put to them. that if a satisfactory agreement is not reached on the Community fisheries policy the new members will be allowed to maintain the status quo and that no change in the status quo will take place without their agreement?
Second, I note that the Norwegian Government have insisted on not confining the negotiations to the transitional period alone but have asked for fundamental changes in the long-term provisions for fisheries. As this is the case and no one has protested about this in principle, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House why Her Majesty's Government did not take similar steps on the long-term provisions of the common agricultural policy and the budget contributions?
Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not accede to the Common Market until the needs of the other applicants have been satisfactorily met, since if they did so they would be changing the whole political balance inside the Community on the basis of which the Government asked the House to approve these negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehensions about the whole position of E.F.T.A. I have made regular reports about the meetings which I have had with the E.F.T.A. countries, both candidate and non-candidate, and we have been proceeding all along in an agreed and wholly satisfactory manner.
Concerning fisheries policy, our position was made perfectly clear in the debate. Everybody understood that the fisheries policy was still a matter for negotiation. We are now in the middle of those negotiations. As I reported to the House, we have made a measure of progress, but clearly there is a good deal still to be settled.
There are, in effect, three possibilities. First, a six-mile limit for everybody, which we originally suggested, which maintains a certain balance of advantage between inshore and deep-sea fishermen. That does not seem to have found favour. Secondly, there is the possibility of the status quo. Thirdly, there is in effect a new regulation which maintains a fair balance of mutual advantage between the old and the new members. That is what we are seeking. We are in touch not only with the Community, but we have had pretty frequent meetings with the Ministers of the other candidate countries about this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wolrige-Gordon.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: rose—

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has not answered any one of the questions which I put to him?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Wolrige-Gordon.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his conduct of these negotiations will have brought a great deal of comfort to fishermen in what for them is a difficult and worrying time? Does he agree that in the way that things are developing in the oceans at the moment, the 12-mile limit is a minimum requirement for this country, not a maximum?

Mr. Rippon: I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole problem of fishing is not just a matter for discussion in the context of enlargement negotiations.
There are many other problems, some of which no doubt will arise at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea when it takes place. Certainly what I have been discussing in Brussels is only part of the picture.

Mr. Grimond: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy for his apparently successful efforts on behalf of Orkney and Shetland. My constituents will be grateful to him and to the Community for suggesting that the 12-mile limit around those islands should be preserved.
May I take it that the Community has also accepted that the 12-mile limit must last longer than 10 years?
I support the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his efforts to ensure that satisfactory arrangements for the fishing communities extend further than 10 years, because an interim period of that length would not inspire confidence in the industry.

Mr. Rippon: We have made it clear, as we did, in effect, on New Zealand, that a transition to disaster would be no solution, even if the initial period was a lengthy one.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on utterly rejecting the proposals put forward by the Commission. Will he maintain that stand and ensure that British fishermen get no less than that arrangement which will be acceptable to all four applicant countries?

Mr. Rippon: We are certainly trying to find a suitable common denominator which will reconcile all our interests and ensure comparable and fair treatment between all the parties concerned.

Mr. James Johnson: The Minister has often stated that he does not want a quick solution, but a correct solution. Is he aware that the whole House would want him to fight this 12-mile limit question to the bitter end? Will he assure the House that he will do so and that he has the means to enforce it? In other words, has he got helicopters and a defensive patrol which will ensure that we can maintain the 12-mile limit?

Mr. Rippon: We are negotiating with our friends and allies. I should not at this stage want to adopt too bellicose an attitude. I know that right hon. and


hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about any policing arrangements which might be made. When talking about the 12-mile limit we must remember that the legal position of Norway is rather different from ours, because of historic rights.

Mr. Nott: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on the substantial progress which he has made on this issue. Will he confirm that he regards Cornwall as an area where fishing is part of the economic and social structure of the community? Is he aware that we want the status quo if he can possibly obtain it?

Mr. Rippon: I certainly put forward the anxieties expressed by fishermen in areas dependent on crustaceans.

Mr. McNamara: Despite what the Chancellor's hon. Friends and some hon. Members on this side of the House may be saying, may I ask whether he is aware that we are completely dissatisfied with his statement on fishing, because he has said nothing at all? Will he now answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and tell us whether we shall sign the Treaty of Accession before we have an agreement on fishing? Will he also tell us whether he will allow frozen fillets from Iceland to be regarded as industrial products for the purpose of E.F.T.A. negotiations, bearing in mind Iceland's demand for a 50-mile limit, the effect which this will have on our deep-sea fleet, and the corresponding effect, if that limit is imposed. on our middle and inshore fishing fleets which are vitally important in the discussions and cannot be ignored?

Mr. Rippon: I am aware of the anxieties about the Icelandic claim to a 50-mile limit, but that is outside the context of the negotiations. We must bear in mind the point made earlier, that to talk about a 12-mile limit is only part of a wider problem.
I have made it clear in my statement that the signing of the Treaty will not be before 29th November when we have our next meeting.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why

the Western Isles, which have an even less economic hinterland than Orkney and Shetland, have not been mentioned in the same breath, particularly as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is a pro-Marketeer and therefore those islands should take what will be coming as a result of going into the Market?

Mr. Rippon: The House will appreciate that we are, in effect, in the middle of negotiations. I am not at this stage laying down ultimata to our friends and allies about what the final outcome may be. But we have had very much in mind the position of the Western Isles, which is rather different, because we must remember that when we talk of a six-mile limit we talk of six miles from the base lines agreed in the European Convention of 1964.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether the Community proposes to extend the arrangements to be offered to non-candidate countries to any candidate countries which, by reason of dissatisfaction with the fisheries position or for any other reason, decide to withdraw their application?

Mr. Rippon: I regard that as an entirely hypothetical question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and one which at the moment is not likely to arise.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has again undermined his negotiating position by agreeing to a date for signing the Treaty without coming to a final agreement on fisheries and on E.F.T.A.? Is he also aware that his statement today is as unsatisfactory as many of his statements in the past and makes a nonsense of the vote of the House on 28th October to enter the Community?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that that could be suggested. Everybody knew what the position was on fisheries when we took the vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was understood that there were a number of issues still to be determined, of which one was fisheries. I made clear in my speech the position on fisheries. It is clear from what I have said today that we have not yet settled the matter. It is being tackled urgently. I hope that we shall make progress on


29th November. It was in that belief that the Community stated that it was our aim to sign the Treaty before Christmas.

Sir T. Beamish: My right hon. and learned Friend will recollect what a fine sight some of the trawlers from Newhaven made off Brighton during the Conservative Party conference. Is he aware that the very firm way in which he continues to handle this inshore fishing question is very much respected and admired in my constituency?

Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy at least give a clear assurance that, on behalf of the British fishing industry, he will not accept any arrangement less favourable than that secured by Norway for her fishermen?

Mr. Rippon: That is what we talked about in the debate: that we must have arrangements which maintain a fair balance of advantage between the parties to the negotiations. That means that we would expect to receive comparable treatment to Norway and the other candidate countries.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that in ending the arrangement with E.F.T.A. he should place on record that during its lifetime this Association has been an outstanding success? Is he aware that many people in this country will regret its premature ending?

Mr. Rippon: We agree that it has been an outstanding success. At the E.F.T.A. meeting in Geneva we were all unanimous in expressing our satisfaction at the progress which has been made in fulfilling what was one of the main aims of the Stockholm Convention, namely, the enlargement of the Community.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that to treat the proposals, at least so far as Scottish coastal waters are concerned, on a sectoral basis will be unsatisfactory, inequitable and unworkable from the point of view of conservation? Is he not aware that the whole concept of trying to evaluate the dependence of an area upon fisheries is unworkable?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the anxieties. I expressed some observations

about this concept of the hinterland and the suggestion that an area had to be wholly or mainly dependent upon fisheries for special measures to apply. Of course, we have accepted around our coasts the principle of historic rights between six miles and 12 miles. There are certain real differences between areas and the types of fishing in those areas, and that fact has to be borne in mind. There are areas in which by far the higher proportion of the catch is between six and 12 miles. In other areas that is not a problem, while there is the question of the baseline and how that affects particular areas.

Mr. Marten: As we are now withdrawing from E.F.T.A. on 31st December, 1972, if the consequential legislation should not get through can we then rejoin it? Will it still exist for us to rejoin? While I am on that point, may I ask the following question: if we sign the Treaty of Accession at the end of this year and the consequential legislation should not get through, what is the constitutional position in which we would stand? May I say to my right hon. and learned Friend: please do not say that this is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Rippon: What we have had to do is to give notice, in accordance with Article 42 of the Stockholm Convention. Therefore, assuming the legislation passes, in order to be full members on 1st January, 1973 we have to give notice of withdrawal by 31st December, 1971, in order not to be members of two organisations at the same time on 1st January, 1973. I think that is a technical matter. I do not find that it caused great alarm among our E.F.T.A. partners. We are all working together. If circumstances arose either for us or for the other candidate countries whereby the enlargement did not take place, I do not think we would be in any difficulty in practice.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Mr. Milne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement that we have received, may I give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is common form in the House.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the need for some of us to refer to this statement and possibly to describe it, could you offer your guidance on an episode which took place earlier this week involving my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) who used a combination of two epithets with regard to the Secretary of State for Wales? It was not clear from that episode whether it was the substantive epithet or the sanguinary addendum which was out of order.

Mr. Speaker: That is a complete abuse of a point of order.

Following is the CommunEquÉ:

MINISTERIAL MEETINGS OF E.F.T.A. COUNCILS GENEVA 4TH AND 5TH NOVEMBER, 1971

CommuniquÉ

The E.F.T.A. Council and the Joint Council of E.F.T.A. and Finland met at ministerial level in Geneva on 4th and 5th November. 1971.

In the E.F.T.A. Council, with the Finnish Minister taking part in a personal capacity, a full discussion of the present situation and prospects of wider European integration took place. Ministers noted with satisfaction the considerable progress which had been made since their last meeting in the negotiations and discussions of E.F.T.A. countries with the European communities.

The membership negotiations of most of the candidate countries had virtually been completed and it could now he expected that the necessary membership treaty could be signed towards the end of the current year. The prospects for suitable special relations agreements between the communities and the other E.F.T.A. countries had also improved considerably. Ministers hoped that negotiations to this end should start soon and be pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

The concept of the communities would provide a good basis for the negotiations which were about to begin. The community's desire that no new barriers to intra-European trade would be erected as a consequence of enlargement is in line with the strong interest which E.F.T.A. Ministers have expressed and reaffirm in safeguarding as an important part of an enlarged European community the free trade already established between E.F.T.A. countries. The forthcoming agreements should also be in conformity with the G.A.T.T. Ministers stressed the importance which they attached to adherence to these objectives in the elaboration of the agreements. The exchange of information and consultations between the E.F.T.A. countries would continue during these negotiations.

Ministers emphasized the desire of all concerned that all the agreements between the E.F.T.A. countries and the communities should enter into force at the same time.

Ministers asked the Council at offical level to examine the legal and other implications which will arise in the event of some members acceding to the European Communities, and others establishing special relations with the communities. They were informed of the intention of the United Kingdom to give notice on 31st December, 1971 of their withdrawal from E.F.T.A., to come into effect on 31st December, 1971.

During their discussion of developments affecting World Trade, Ministers expressed concern that recent monetary and trade measures taken for balance of payments reasons could seriously undermine the progress which has been made towards the reduction of restrictions on world trade, therefore Ministers hoped that quick solutions could he found in the monetary field and that recently introduced trade restrictions could be removed as rapidly as possible, before lasting damage was done, pending the necessary reform of the International monetary system. Ministers stressed the necessity of continued efforts towards freer world trade and underlined the importance which the activities in oreanizations such as GATT and the OECD will have in this connection.

Ministers stressed the importance of further promoting trade and economic relations between Western and Eastern European Countries to the mutual benefit of the parties concerned. They attached special importance to improving the trading possibilities of the developing countries.

The Danish Minister gave an account of the recent measures taken by Denmark to deal with the serious Balance of Payments situation of his country, Ministers expressed their understanding of the difficult problems facing Denmark, but noted with regret the recent decision of the Danish Government to introduce an import surcharge. particularly in the context of the present world trade situation. They instructed the councils at official level to examine the matter further.

Ministers agreed that the next regular Ministerial meeting of the councils will take place in Geneva on 4th and 5th May. 1972.
5th November 1971.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr, Chichester-Clark: Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which needs urgent consideration, namely,
the cold-blooded murder since the House began to sit this afternoon or two more members of the security forces in Northern Ireland by a bunch of cold-blooded murderers.


The two men murdered in this case were policemen.
My submission is this. At a time when some of the media are almost, it seems, exclusively concerned with allegations of brutality by troops and policemen, it is more than time that this House gave time for a discussion of the appalling brutality conducted by a small band of murderers and thugs against our hard-pressed troops and police and against innocent women, of which we have seen in the last two days some gruesome details.
What is required—I hope it can be granted at once—is a speech from the Prime Minister and one from the Leader of the Opposition directing the attention of the people of this country and some of the less reputable media in this country to the risk to life, the hardship and the provocation which our security forces have endured, and, whatever may have occurred in the way of isolated incidents, to the fortitute and humanity with which they have comported themselves. What is needed is a declaration from this House that we shall never surrender to terrorism. In my submission, this is a most urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the cold-blooded murder since the House began to sit this afternoon of two more members of the security forces in Northern Ireland by a bunch of cold-blooded murderers.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, this is a decision entirely for me and it is not at all an easy decision to make. My decision reflects in no way upon the gravity of the matter raised or the strength of the feelings on the part of those who support such an allegation. I have simply a procedural decision to make, which is not an easy one. That decision is whether the hon. Member's application should have precedence over the business already set down, and I am afraid that I cannot grant his application.

SOUND BROADCASTING [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the functions of the Independent Television Authority, renamed the Independent Broadcasting Authority, so as to include the provision of local sound broad- casting services, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of advances to the Authority to defray capital expenditure and to provide working capital in connection with the provision of local sound broadcasting services, subject to a limit of £2 million on the amount for the time being outstanding by way of principal in respect of such advances;
(b) of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Statutory Instrument, every Scheme or Amendment of a Scheme, requiring approval by Statutory Instrument, and every draft of such an Instrument, Scheme or Amendment, being an Instrument, Scheme, Amendment or Draft which is laid before the House and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in the House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, every other general Statutory Instrument, and every Order which is subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:—

(1) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;
(2) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period;
(3) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;
(4) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;
(5) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(6) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification to Mr. Speaker under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(7) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation;
(8) that the drafting of it appears to he defective;

or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons there-of in any particular case:—and the Committee was nominated of Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. Michael Havers, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Ernie Money, Mr. Ronald King Murray, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. David Waddington, and Mr. Walder.

Ordered,

That the Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker:

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to sit not- withstanding any Adjournment of the House and to report from time to time:

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Instrument or other Document which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Instrument or other Document:

Ordered,

That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:

Ordered,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any Instrument or other Document the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the department think fit:

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memoranda submitted or other evidence given to the Committee by any Government department in explanation of any Instrument or other Document:

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any Instrument or other Document—[Mr. Rossi.]

PROCEDURE

Ordered,

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Procedure in the Public Business of the House; and to report what alterations, if any, are desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business:—and the Committee was nominated of Mr. Austen Albu, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. John P Mackintosh, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. John Parker, Sir Robin Turton, and Dame Irene Ward.

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to report from time to time:

Ordered,

That Four he the Quorum of the Committce.—[Mr. Rossi.]

CIVIL LIST

Ordered,

That the Select Committee on the Civil List have power to report the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Civil List, together with the Memoranda laid before them, in the last Session of Parliament, and referred to the Committee on 8th November.—[Mr. Rossi.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

ROADS (FINANCE)

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Alan Fitch: I much appreciate this opportunity to raise the important subject of road congestion. It is necessary to do so since figures recently issued by the Department of the Environment show that after a period in the doldrums the motor trade is picking up. This is good news. It means more employment; it means increased exports; it means that more people are able to afford a car and enjoy its use. It does, however, also mean that realistic action should now be taken to modernise our road system, since our interurban roads are heavily overloaded while the situation in our towns and cities has reached crisis point.
For the last seven years, I have taken part in the activities of our all-party roads study group, and I have the honour now to serve as joint-chairman with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). We have been able to study conditions at home and abroad. Experts have given us the benefit of their knowledge—county surveyors, borough engineers, town planners, professors, economists. I myself have attended meetings when experts have addressed us, and I have visited Sheffield, Manchester, Stuttgart, Vienna, Brussels, Liege and and Antwerp. However, throughout these seven years, I have also been a Whip and therefore subject to the monastic discipline of virtual silence which is expected of that office. Now that I am free of that discipline, I should like to take this early opportunity to speak on the difficult problem of road

congestion and to suggest, humbly, how it could be dealt with.
I start with some truisms. Roads begin and end at every front door, office, factory gate, shop, school and place of entertainment. All our family lives therefore depend upon them. So does all industry and commerce. Furthermore, all roads begin and end at every railway station and goods yard, at every dockside and at every airport. So all other forms of transport depend upon them too. Roads are things of paramount importance.
But regrettably they are not always considered to be so. From reading the newspapers and sometimes watching television and listening to the radio, one gains the impression that roads and the vehicles that run on them—our cars and lorries—are inventions of the devil. It is the anti-roads, the anti-car and the anti-lorry lobbies which make the headlines. Their propaganda is effective too.
It is true that at national and local government elections lip service is paid to roads. We say that we will do this and that we will do that. But we have our reservations. Roads are all right in theory but in practice all too often, it would seem, only over our dead bodies are we willing to see such and such a new road or road improvement go through our country, borough or parish. Through someone else's—yes; through ours—no.
As a result of this attitude of mind, our road network is grossly inadequate. As I have said, most of our trunk roads are heavily overloaded, whilst in the great conurbations in this most urbanised of countries the average speed of traffic is 11 miles an hour—very little faster than it was 100 years ago in the age of the stage coach. This is throttling our national economy and making our personal lives miserable when we go on our business or, indeed, on our pleasure.
The reason our road network is grossly inadequate is because we grossly underinvest in its modernisation. Let us look for a moment at a comparison between Great Britain and Japan, another island nation. It is of interest to note that Japan's capital expenditure on new roads and major improvements is running at over £700 million a year, whilst ours is well below half that figure. Comparisons


are odious, but I make no bones about it that I consider that this is worse than odious; I find it tragic. It points straight to economic decline. The situation is grim because it happens that the Japanese figure is about the right figure for Great Britain if we are to conquer congestion. We will probably need to double the money for the roads programme if the wealth and prosperity of this nation are to be assured.
Let us for a moment look at a few more figures. Take the inter-urban problem, which now, happily, is in hand. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that a great deal of credit should go to his right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who was in the hot seat that the right hon. Gentleman is now in, for the preparation of plans by which it is intended to provide the country by about 1981 with a primary network of 3,500 miles of high quality strategic trunk routes, of which about 2,000 miles will be motorways. The cost is estimated at £2,300 million and will therefore require an expenditure at the rate of about £230 million a year. Unfortunately, that is not even half the problem. In financial terms, it is only one-third of it.
It is absurd to build a spanking new inter-urban network which will simply pour traffic into the conurbations where congestion is already at crisis point. Urban roads need to be modernised at the same pace as inter-urban roads, for roads are virtually indivisible. In other words, it is time to take the long overdue action to implement at least some of the recommendations of Professor Buchanan and Lord Crowther in their work, "Traffic in Towns". We need to build the urban primary distributor networks, and we need to make the once-and-for-all financial effort required to pay for them.
Here again the experts have worked out the figures. Mr. Christopher Foster estimated the cost at between £5,000 and £6,000 million; but that was for complete modernisation. Professor E. V. Morgan, aiming at a target date of about 1980, roughly that of the present interurban plans, estimated the cost of a modified urban network at £4,100 million for the roads and off-street parking spaces. However, not much has been done in the five years since these estimates were made, and inflation will obviously in-

crease them. It would probably be close to the mark if we said that an expenditure of about £5,000 million was necessary to meet the 1981 target. Breaking down the annual rate, this would mean £500 million for urban roads, plus £230 million for the inter-urban, making a total requirement of £730 million a year.
The winds of change are, however, blowing through the corridors of financial power. Our former colleague Richard Marsh is playing some interesting financial gambits to get money for British Rail's rolling stock and to develop its land and property. In connection with roads, I think the Secretary of State might well take a look at how the building of the Manchester Ship Canal was financed nearly 100 years ago. It was done by a combination of private and municipal investment. A similar system is used in Belgium to raise the money to build motorways, and there seems no reason why it should not be considered here. If the terms are right, new capital sources could be tapped in our regions to provide the new urban and inter-urban roads they need. It is a scheme which needs to be considered.
I turn to my constituency of Wigan. The county borough council, as would be expected from its go-ahead policies in all matters affecting the well-being of its people, has been quick off the mark in dealing with traffic congestion in the town. The inner ring road, or town centre ring road as it is aptly named, is going well. I am pleased that the Minister has given permission for the reconstruction of the Chapel Lane Bridge which, with Riverway, Powell Street and Dicconson Street, is an essential part of the town's centre ring road. Unfortunately, the construction of the dual carriageway in Wallgate has had to be put back because the Minister has asked the corporation to undertake a study in land use transportation which will take at least two years to complete. I am all in favour of having a good look at any project before it is embarked upon. I hope that when the study is complete it will not be tucked away in a Ministry pigeon hole for months after that but will be acted upon immediately.
I now turn to the intermediate link road which is being paid for by the ratepayers of Wigan without any Government help. Already Robin Park Road, completed a


few years ago, has cost over £108,000, and the Spencer Road Bridge, just completed, cost £157,596, and the estimate for the extension of Scot Lane, which will include three bridges, is roughly £500,000. Is it not possible for the Minister to be more flexible in financing essential road systems such as those I have mentioned, and make a grant for these projects? I know they are not regarded, in the language of the Ministry, as principal road networks, but still they are essential to the relief of congestion in many of our towns.
My last local point concerns the proposed route 255 which, I understand, at the moment consists of a bypass from Skelmersdale to the M.6. Are there any plans to continue this route east of the M.6 to Bolton, thus diverting traffic which at the moment passes through Wigan? The Minister for Local Government and Development, replying to a Question on 27th October, said:
Early next year I intend to add to the principal road preparation list a large additional instalment of schemes to a total value in the region of £500 million-£600 million." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1706.]
This is the sum which, in my view, should be spent not only next year but for many years to come. I am wondering whether this upgrading of expenditure as outlined by the Minister is the Government's policy or intention for the future. There is understandable concern that urban roadways could spoil the environment, but with modern methods of planning there is no reason why they should not improve it. We want an economically prosperous country. We are more likely to get it was a good roads network.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) for giving the House this evening an opportunity to examine the basis of financing the road improvements in this country. I followed his speech very closely. He referred to inter-urban road networks and motorways, but I should like to focus the attention of the Minister on the financial provisions for nonprincipal roads.
The Minister and his Department ought to examine what has happened since the

introduction of the rate support grant, which brought into effect global financing provisions for local government services. Prior to the introduction of the rate support grant, Government financial provision was made for specific local government services. Since the introduction of the rate support grant we have had what I can perhaps best describe as global financial provision, and, as a consequence, local authorities have been spending less each year on non-principal roads.
I can best illustrate this point by referring to the situation in my own local authority, Manchester County Borough. In that area I have been informed, as a consequence of the introduction of the rate support grant, expenditure in the city on non-principal roads has remained pretty much as it was in the year 1967–68. At that time the local city council was obliged to impose a major cut of about £240,000 in revenue expenditure on highways. Even to this day the council has not been able to restore the expenditure on non-principal roads to the presupport grant level, and the necessary highway improvements and other road safety measures which the council has sought to introduce, and the expenditure on service road, footpath and carriageway repairs for 1971–72, is little more than half what it was in 1967–68.
I give general support to many of the views expressed by my hon. Friend and I should like the Minister and his Department to look at the expenditure of major provincial local authorities on nonprincipal roads.

10.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment(Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am sure the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch), who has at last broken his self-imposed silence of many years, will have earned our gratitude for raising this massive subject, which, if time were available, would merit a much longer period of time and the contributions of many more hon. Members than are able to be present at this essentially late-night exercise.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, particularly since I have been involved in the problems to which he drew our attention almost ever since I was elected to the House. The complexity of the decisions and the opportunities that flow from them following


the massive investment of public money that is now available for the roads programme and the associated transport investment programmes is such as to excite the imagination of anyone who has responsibility for directing the flow of that money.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the amount of money involved. If we had a magic wand and were able to increase expenditure I should be the first to press the case of the road programme. But it is a question of priorities, and, in the context of the likely outturn of Government expenditure over the years ahead, the road programme is attracting an increasing proportion of public expenditure.
Total public expenditure this year on the new construction of motorways, trunk and principal roads in England—and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for roads in Scotland—is expected to reach £330 million. Of this, over £200 million will be spent on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads.
Both hon. Gentlemen have referred to the two programmes which the Government have announced in detail, the inter-urban road programme and the principal road programme, and the scale of those announcements. I should like to amplify what the hon. Member for Wigan said and to refer to the considerations which the Government had in mind when they made the decisions in June about the inter-urban road programme, and the considerations which they will have in mind in the spring of next year when they make their decision about the preparation and approval of principal roads.
The House will recall that the Labour Government put out a road programme stretching well towards the end of the century. The present Government felt that the Labour programme lacked immediacy and urgency, and we felt it necessary to give credibility in the eyes of local people to the plans at that time put forward by the Labour Government. Therefore, although we were not prepared to go as far ahead as the previous Government, bearing in mind the lack of credibility that flowed from this long-term outlook, and also because the programme did not indicate sufficiently clearly between one road and another which was

like to come into being earlier rather than later, we wanted a more precise approach to the programme over the next decade. We also wanted to associate the road programme with the environmental factors which everybody now associates with the opportunities that flow from road building.
We did not simply want to put lines on maps and say, "The traffic flow from these roads will mean such-and-such an immediate economic return to society", though that is very important. We wanted to show that our proposals for road building involved not only moving bulldozers up and down the countryside, but also meant real environmental benefits flowing from the opportunities available to us.
There are three factors flowing from our concern to give new impetus to the programme we published. Obviously we wanted to get the largest number of miles we could for the value of money expended. But that is not the end of the story. First, we wanted to ensure that there was a through network joining all the principal centres of population so that anybody who wanted to go from one place of size to another would find it possible to do so without leaving the main network; there would be no necessity to find one's way through urban areas.
Secondly, we wanted to show that roads could be used to remove traffic positively from areas, particularly historic areas, in which congestion was particularly damaging to the heritage of this country. At this time we published plans showing how effective our proposals would be in relieving congestion in these historic towns.
The third aspect we took carefully into account was the feeling of frustration on the part of many members of the public when they saw a heavy container lorry heading to the ports along good inter-urban roads but which then had to go through residential and industrial streets of a city before reaching the dock gates. We took great care, where powers were available to do so or by making direct approaches to local authorities, to ensure that roads went direct to the dock gates. In this way we thought that the environmental damage to people living in the areas would be greatly lessened. This was the approach we adopted in June of this year, and it was widely welcomed and commented upon.


As the hon. Member for Wigan said, we are now involved in the preparation of the other side of the coin—the road network for the principal road scheme which largely involves local authority roads in cities and large urban areas. We have said that we intend in the early part of next year to select from the candidates put forward by the local authorities something in the region of £500 to £600 million-worth of schemes on which work can begin. This is a particularly exciting facet of the work of the Department of the Environment.
As the House will know, I have been responsible for a committee which for over a year has been looking into the whole problem of urban transportation. It is a difficult subject and this matter has been referred to in Adjournment debates and on many other occasions to show our awareness of the problem. We in the Department are very concerned about this matter. One of the indications of our concern is shown in the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development that he will be selecting certain schemes.
He said it will not be enough to put before us schemes which had an efficiency rating higher than some other schemes and which could attract or move cars from A to B at a higher average speed than would now be possible on existing roads. If that is done, it has the effect of encouraging more cars, and they may come along that piece of road at a higher average speed. Where do they go? They go into a part of the network which has not been improved. They look for car parking facilities. They need to be coped with by traffic management schemes and, given better public transport facilities, larger numbers might prefer that form of travel.
We have made it clear in the announcements that we have made that when we come to select those schemes in the spring of next year we shall bring the same sort of cohesive and comprehensive approach to bear on that selection of candidates as we tried to do when we announced our strategic network in June of this year.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) dealt with another area of concern which flows

from one aspect of the problem to which I have referred to generally. It is the financing of non-principal road schemes in local authority areas. I make two points about that. The first is that perhaps the concept of one's ability to cope with urban transport will be helped greatly by the reorganised local government structure for which we shall be legislating shortly. That will bring into being much larger authorities able to take a more comprehensive view of their problems. The studies which are going on in the areas which both hon. Members represent will be helped greatly by the eixstence of a smaller number of more geographically comprehensive authorities than exists at the moment.
There is a strong mood which we in the Department share and encourage that local authorities should have a greater degree of individual choice in the way in which they spend their money. We have tried to give greater local autonomy in the allocation of expenditure. We have not cut expenditure. Indeed, it has risen to record levels, and all the forecasts are that it will continue to be one of the most rapidly rising forms of public expenditure. The total sums have risen, but if local authorities are to use their freedom, it follows that they must be free to decide whether the money should be spent on non-principal roads. There is a balance here between the degree to which the central Government should intervene and the extent of the freedom of local government.
We have raised the options open to the central Government in any changes that we want to make in the financing of local authorities in the Green Paper that we have published as a consultative document on the possibilities of changing the financial structure. That is now on the table for discussion with the local authority associations. It may mean that there are greater opportunities for local authorities to exercise their responsibility independently. If they exercise it, it follows that they must answer to their electors for the consequences.
I share the views of both hon. Members on the schemes in their constituencies. Many are going on, and others have been completed recently. There are the transportation studies. My Department is aware of them and maintains a close relationship.
In trying to answer this debate, the tone of which was set at a high level by the hon. Member for Wigan, I have attempted to indicate how we are approaching these matters in the Department. I want to express the Department's gratitude for the interest that both

hon. Members have shown in the work that it is doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.